Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 11:39 am
cjhsa wrote:
Yesterday Citgo had a full page ad in USA Today supposedly from the CEO of the company telling everyone how the locally owned stations are a boon to the US economy. Bullshit. It was a clever and well timed guise to ring a little sympathy from our pacifist left wing politicians.


It won't work - we know that the Devil has a honeyed tongue and is liable to say such things from time to time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 11:39 am
Quote:
... it revealed Obama's almost embarrassingly naïve view of a president's role in world affairs.


And that's putting it mildly... Cool
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 01:59 pm
Clinton, Obama trade barbs in Quad-City Times interviews
By Ed Tibbetts | Tuesday, July 24, 2007
In separate interviews with the Quad-City Times today, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tangled over Obama's statement at the YouTube debate Monday that he would be willing to meet in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of countries antagonistic to the United States.

Clinton called Obama's comments "irresponsible" and "naive." link
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 02:56 pm
Clinton's own words on Apr 22, 2007:


Clinton Blasts President Bush's Foreign Policy
http://wcbstv.com/us/local_story_112220939.html

(CBS/AP) DECORAH, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.


Opening talks with other countries doesn't mean the U.S. won't defend its interests whenever necessary, she said, "but what it means is that we should discuss other routes before we decide we're going to pursue military options.

"We cannot provide the leadership we need unless we are willing to try engage the other countries," she said,

She dished out plenty of criticism about the war in Iraq, and said when it comes to Iran, the U.S. needs to engage those with the real power -- the clerics.

Of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad she said: "He's like their front man, he's like their puppet. He goes out and gets people agitated and says things that everybody responds to, but he's not making the decisions. The decisions are being made within the alternative government of these clerics.

"We have no idea of how these people think, we have no contact with them," Clinton said, arguing that she's advocated for years to have a process of diplomacy with Iran.

"If we ever have to use force against any country, it should be seen as an action of last resort, not first resort," she said.





http://www.showcook.com/images/tanzyawning_Hippo_-_Crate002F.JPG+http://www.unclegoose.com/images/BlocksCrate.gif= http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Reuters_Photo/2007/07/01/1183291447_1157/410w.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 03:54 pm
Now, if we can get those quotes to the media for them to publish, maybe her poll numbers will go down. LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 04:43 pm
Obama debate comments set off firestorm


By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
48 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush's diplomacy.


Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama's supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.

It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama's team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator's lack of foreign policy experience.

"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper's Web site on Tuesday.

In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration.


Obama should have charged back with what Hillary said as in the above post.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 05:05 pm
It makes sense to talk to your enemies or perceived enemies. Hillary knows that as Butrflynet proved. No wonder people hate pols.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 09:19 pm
Miller wrote:
Quote:
... it revealed Obama's almost embarrassingly naïve view of a president's role in world affairs.


And that's putting it mildly... Cool


Cool
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 09:28 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
It makes sense to talk to your enemies or perceived enemies. Hillary knows that as Butrflynet proved. No wonder people hate pols.


What sense does it make to talk to your enemies?

More precisely, what sense does it make to talk to your enemies with the naive and dangerous notion that conversation will resolve all levels of dispute?

It makes perfect sense to talk to your "enemies" if you believe the underlying conflict is based solely on misunderstanding and miscommunication. (North Korea? Iran? Al Qaeda?)

It makes perfect sense to talk to your "enemies," if by doing so you can gain some advantage over them (Not at all what Obama was suggesting).

What "perceived enemies" do we have that are not, in fact, are enemies?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 04:37 am
Miller wrote:
Quote:
... it revealed Obama's almost embarrassingly naïve view of a president's role in world affairs.


And that's putting it mildly... Cool


So the alternative is not talk. Carry a big stick and use it, like Iraq. Works wonders.

How about nuking Iran? Watch them beg for mercy, right? They won't fight back. Muslims are cowards, right?

How about Pakistan? They're not taking out AQ and won't allow us to attack anything inside their borders.

Nuke them maybe?

After all we didn't build up this massive nuclear arsenal so it could sit around to collect dust, did we?

Nuking is so much easier than talking. It's so nieve to talk. It's so manly to nuke.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:59 am
Finn d'Abuzz, citing a National Review opinion piece without naming his source, wrote:
But most of the time, it turns out, your questions will be pretty much the same as the ones asked by people who live in New Hampshire and Iowa. The significance of the Ahmadinejad/Assad/Chavez/Castro/Kim question was not that it came from a man in California or that it was asked via web video. It was that it revealed Obama's almost embarrassingly naïve view of a president's role in world affairs. And that was the real story in Charleston Monday night.

Original Source

Unfortunately, Byron York's analysis depends on his unstated assumption that the silent treatment works better than negotiations in country-to-country power brokering. This assumption, however, is pretty hard to find good evidence for, let alone to take for granted. Certainly I have seen no evidence coming from the thread participants who called Obama naive.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 08:36 am
Thomas wrote:
Unfortunately, Byron York's analysis depends on his unstated assumption that the silent treatment works better than negotiations in country-to-country power brokering. This assumption, however, is pretty hard to find good evidence for, let alone to take for granted.

Indeed, I would go farther and say that there is compelling evidence to suggest that the silent treatment doesn't work at all. I think it is beyond doubt now that the only thing that has kept the Castro regime in power (while all other Soviet client states abandoned Communism) are the sanctions imposed on the regime by the US. Likewise, Ahmadinajad's regime in Iran is, right now, being propped up by international sanctions. Meanwhile, the one success story that the Bush administration has arguably had in the realm of foreign policy -- Libya's agreement to end its own WMD programs -- came as the result of negotiations, not the "silent treatment."

Obama, far from being naive, is being particularly insightful. It is Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, who favors a continuation of the failed policies of the past.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 08:55 am
Joe, Hillary has contradicted herself from previous statements about the necessity to negotiate with our enemies. It's no wonder her attack on Obama didn't stick in her throat; she's a politician trying to make points without any regard to honesty.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 08:58 am
Same old "hell take the hindmost" Hillary I've come to know and love...
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:31 am
snood wrote:
Same old "hell take the hindmost" Hillary I've come to know and love...


And, you'll love President Clinton, the first woman President in the U.S.A. even more. Cool
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:51 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Indeed, I would go farther and say that there is compelling evidence to suggest that the silent treatment doesn't work at all.

If this was your best attempt at a mutually satisfactory disagreement, you disappoint me. Your whole post makes way too much sense.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 12:14 pm
Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Indeed, I would go farther and say that there is compelling evidence to suggest that the silent treatment doesn't work at all.

If this was your best attempt at a mutually satisfactory disagreement, you disappoint me. Your whole post makes way too much sense.

Sorry. I'll try to do better/worse next time.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jul, 2007 03:29 am
Finally, the gloves are coming off in the Democratic debate.

The New York Times wrote:

Source

I'm glad the Democrats can finally talk clear alternatives instead of having their differences drowned in harmony sauce.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jul, 2007 07:37 am
These two seemingly smart people are doing each other damage. What's the excuse?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jul, 2007 07:38 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
These two seemingly smart people are doing each other damage. What's the excuse?


I spotted Hillary going through a dumpster near my house last night.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 223
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 08/19/2025 at 05:01:13